If no thought is ever given to challenges, etc, the game can be considered thoughtless on the part of the DM. If thought is given in other areas, thought, then what I am describing is not thoughtless.
This is why I specifically said that the DM would be "thoughtless toward the game".
This still is not true. If I place the super high level knight at the front gate because it's the most sensible thing in the fiction to do, it's not because I want to deter the PCs from attacking the front gate. My desires don't come into that decision other than the desire for things to make sense and the desire for the game to be fun for myself and the other players. That is also not a thoughtless decision. I put a lot of thought into what would make sense and why the knight is there.
It is thoughtless toward the game. What would make sense from a fictional standpoint could be any number of things. The knight could literally be anywhere and you could provide a rational explanation in the fiction.
In real life, you are most likely to find me at my home. That does not make it unrealistic to find me in a grocery store or at a friend's house or in Paris on vacation (pandemic aside). So for your example, you're taking what's "most likely" and then treating it as "what must be". And hey, that's fine......make your decision however you want.
But if you haven't thought "hmmmm if I place this high level knight here, it will impact this encounter in this way" then I think you've only done half your job. There are two levels going on here, not just one. The fiction and the game. Both need to be considered.
This is entirely dependent on what those options are and why the DM is deciding that they cannot work. If you have a jerk that is just removing options and saying no, because of what he wants to happen in the game, that's bad. If you have a thoughtful DM who is saying no to an option because it just flat out can't work, then it's not a problem at all.
Depending on how many there are and what the reasons are that they "don't work" is potentially a problem. This is my point.
If these decisions are made with consideration for the fiction, and with consideration towards how they will play as a game, letting the PCs come up with their own ideas about how to go about their business, then it's fine. I think we're in agreement on that.
Where I think we disagree is how these things may be decided, and how if the game functions in such a way that the DM decides what's in the fiction, then there is serious potential for things to only go the way the DM wants.
I think you're looking at this through the lens of your preferred method of running the game. There are a lot of people for whom this type of play is most enjoyable. If I were to run it differently for my players, then I would not be considering the game that is being played. We emjoy a different playstyle.
I'm not even advocating for a different playstyle here.
This whole branch of the discussion came about due to my agreement with another poster who said "the more paths that the DM unilaterally removes from play, the more things shift toward being a railroad".
So this is what I'm talking about and have been all along. The DM deciding "path A is impossible". Now, as I've said, one instance isn't really a problem.....but the more it happens in any instance, the worse it is.
So if the DM says "okay, it's essentially suicide to storm the front gates....how else do you want to get into the castle?" that isn't a problem in and of itself.
If the PCs say "Okay, then let's climb over the walls" and the DM says "well that won't work because the guards watching the walls are spaced in such a way that you'll never be able to climb hidden....so no good."
Then they say "Hm, okay how about if we bribe someone to help us get inside?" and the DM goes "Well, the baron is known for his cruelty, and everyone knows that betrayal means death not only for them, but for their family too.....so there's no way this'll work."
And so on, until only the sewer is left as a viable means of entry. This is what is a problem. To me, what would be worse would be to spend a lot of time on actually attempting to play these paths out in some way, only to eventually smash headfirst into DM fiat.
"What makes sense" is subjective, and as we've seen in this thread, often actually means "what's most likely". So some DMs can handle this responsibility just fine. Others can't, but their players are perfectly fine with a very linear railroad. So what I'm describing may or may not be "bad"......but for me, it would tend to diminish my enjoyment of a game the more it occurred.
To be honest, I rarely consider paths into and out of places. I just make the place in the way it seems like it should be made, given the fiction and have at it. Players are a very ingenious lot and will think of ways that work................and ways that don't. They may even figure out a way past Sir Invincible.
Sure, and again this is fine overall. I think some consideration absolutely must be given to the game's mechanics, but otherwise, yes, I agree.
I disagree. I look to the fiction to inform me of why to do something first and foremost. It's only after that fails, since the fiction far from covers all things, that I become the sole determiner for what will happen. For example, if the fiction has 1 or 2 probable ways something might happen, I will pick from those 1 or 2 options. The fiction is entirely the reason why that decision is being made by me. It's a shared determination, not solely mine. However, if there's nothing in the fiction to provide me options, then and only then is what is happening not being determined by the fiction and entirely my decision.
You've created the fiction.
You look to the fiction to decide how things go.
The fiction tells you how things go.
This is you telling yourself how to adjudicate.
Sure, but I think this is more due to inexperience than anything else. I grew out of that and all the DMs that I've seen from their early days on for a long period of time grew out of that. I'm sure some never go past that limitation, but I think most do grow.
I think that it still happens, even with experience. I learned that lesson a long time ago. But my most recent experience in running a published module (Tomb of Annihilation) I found myself relying on what was written more than I perhaps should have. I tend to be very flexible with my own material, but I think that the subconscious fear that I'd mess up "how it was supposed to go" was there. Luckily I realized it, and adjusted for it. Things went much better after that.
I almost never say no they can't attempt something. If they wanted to try and jump a three mile wide chasm that is one mile deep, I'd let the player have his PC make that attempt and roll up a new PC.
I'm not about stopping them from trying things. Things will just sometimes result in an an outright fail.
How do you decide what will outright fail?
